I wonder now, as we prepare for draconian cuts, if we should not be petitioning for constructive utilisation of budgets, budgets for social change, rather than shrill and angry complaints. Should we not jettison our outrage at government policy as little more than theatrical, and instead constructively temper our minds to solutions. We should learn to box clever. I get a distinct feeling that many of the angriest welfare cuts critics shout as though fascism has won, the poor have be driven into the streets, and all social good has been routed. These representatives of the poor might want to start involving the poor in their own redemption out of poverty.

My friends in Scotland, many of whom used to be Labour supporters, have now left Labour to join the SNP or the Greens. There is no mystery to this. This is not about 'nationalism' it is about values; it is about justice. Scots are saying that they have more faith in themselves than they do in London.

Social enterprise is a great idea, but still will not, and cannot, replace state social welfare programs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against social enterprise. Indeed, I have worked for social enterprises all my working life and I champion the causes across the University of Northampton in the UK, where I now work. I have started, stopped, advised, been a director of, researched and published about, social enterprises over the last twenty years.

Attacks on the welfare state by politicians of all parties are now commonplace. It seems we've forgotten what the welfare state is for and why it is so important. It's time to take a fresh look at the welfare state and the game of Monopoly helps us do just that.

It is demeaning, they argue, to stand in line for a food parcel. But is it really any less demeaning to stand in a not dissimilar line at the door of a job centre or welfare office. Don't both turn people into state dependents?

Benefits Street has provided a unique opportunity - it has made the nature of our welfare state an unprecedentedly hot topic. That chance needs to be seized upon by progressives everywhere. They must not get lost in the smaller picture, but change the nature of the debate itself.

Not only does Benefits Street propagate the myth of the work-shy, morally reprehensible benefits scrounger, it also neglects the majority of benefits claimants. Contrary to popular belief, most are not on unemployment benefits. In fact, the largest part of the welfare bill is spent on state pensions, with disability benefits and family benefits also coming in costing substantially more than unemployment.

It is true that some of the residents of James Turner Street have not made the best nor wisest of decisions during their lives, but the response that the programme has generated has been both violent and deeply concerning.

The highest form of charity, argued the 12th-century Jewish philosopher Maimonides, is when the help given enables the receiver to become self- sufficient. But our systems of state charity - aka welfare - have too frequently had the opposite effect: they have actually created dependency. It is time to re-think the way we help people.

We need a party that will stand by trade unions, not cut them adrift as they face yet another damaging setback for workers' rights at Grangemouth. We need a socialist party, a party that will fight as vigorously to defend the rights of the oppressed as the Tories do to defend the pockets of the privileged. Labour used to be these things, but no more.

We could reduce this risk by creating a basic income for all citizens and then not paying politicians anything. Or alternatively we could demand that politicians don't set their own salary. We, the people should set their salaries, by plebiscite.

The attacks on the poor, working poor and disabled under the guise of "Welfare Reform" by the Tory-led Government has caused untold damage to households and families up and down the country. It would appear that the Government believes that welfare claimants should pay the most for the mistakes of the financial sector.

The benefit cap is now in place across the country. This means that benefit claims are limited to a fair level, a maximum of the average working household income of £500 a week. The taxpayer who funds the welfare state has the assurance that someone in receipt of benefits no longer has an income that's beyond the reach of the average working family.

ATOS bashing is a trend that masks a deep dislike and pity for disabled people as 'other' rather than included members of society, and simply adds fuel for the eugenics movement since if disabled people are naturally and automatically unemployable, what is the next logical conclusion?

The biggest challenge facing most European governments is how to put their countries' finances back on an even keel. In Britain, so much of our government budget goes on welfare that clawing the country out of debt will inevitably involve cutting back more of the welfare state while continuing to protect those most in need.

The government's flagship Universal Credit programme is in deep trouble. Iain Duncan-Smith has repeatedly claimed that the project is "on track". He is utterly out of touch with reality, and that's why things are going wrong. He would have done far better to come clean about the problems.